effect on the public's view of politicians of people and their parties. it is the sustained prism through which they are described, over a sustained period of time. that is immeasurably more important. .. 

area much of the sort of issue specific endorsement if u like which is the subject o discussion. i observed not to make any wide points but i observed as it happens but support didn't last three long because the guardi for reasons that are legitimate for them to hold were disillusioned with the question of the entry into it, and when  referendum on the electoral forms happened on the issue ey've supported us the guardian was quite sort of ambivalent towards it so it jus shows these things can changeo9= o)ring quickly.o!o!o!o!o!o!o!o!) >> there can be no question ofo+

any implied deal because yourg)) policy as been the same forg9g99 decades since the merger of the9 social democrats and liberals i- 1987 or whenever it was, but is there a danger here of the sort of discussion that you are describing becoming transactional? i'm talking more generally.  i think there is. y discussion is a transaction it's a transaction of views and opinions. you need to guard against that if they're coming in means by which a good government and is worked into the public interest

is undermined.j!j!j!k!j!k!k!k >> 51 on public policy. >> just before you change subjects on the same topic it has been suggested, it's also being denied that has been suggested that there is a difference between the approach to journalists certainly adopted by the labor party after 1992 and up to the 1997 general election they took into government, which as i said has been a difference of opinion. some said that is when it stadium was unreasonable. i appreciate that your opposition looks of the whole problem from a slightly different perspective.

but i'm interested in your views as to whether there is or should be a slightly different relationship between the way you try to tell your story when you are in opposition the way in which you do when you are in government what they're there are risks there. to some extent you comment by saying the contact have more policy specific but there's a more general issue about i wo be very interested in your view on the perspective. >> there is a general issue because the government is clearly utterly different. you are no longer singleminde lee promoting your views and th sort of at chances of your political party which is a wide ty to the public and ther certain issues where you have a

very big dewey to i don't know, inform the public up changing e language benefits and welfare operation accessible to them or public health issues where the government has an objective role that needs to ge its message across on the issue of overwhelming public we serve the nation and i think it's f to say that the skills of the sort of political position aren't quite the same skills of that of public information that you adopt in government, which is why the division of labor between the government office who are officials working on behalf of government in the party and political media appointees is a very important one to get right. >> do you think this is or has been demonstrated to be a risk

that the mechanism for the message has been taken sometimes from opposition and a government in a way that is. integrity is too big of a word. but the balance with which the ssage is actually being told. >> i think the inquiry like istair campbell speak for themselves where he i think say with hindsight we just kept up this frenzied tempo wanting to dominate the headlines every single day that we had ccessfully deployed in opposition and carry it through the government and if i stand corrected, i think i'm not

putting words in his mouth the sort of - sight they should he been less concerned about the press earlier. >> i think that is right. we see evidence that i was reflecting when i was asked a question. i just wonder whether you have seen the temptation of that that as you have stepped from opposition to government and whether it simply is a mind-set that all new ministers have to get into so that they actually  understand that there role i different. >> it's a learning exercise for any party and set of individuals that enter the government for the first time, so a very different environment for which to work, but to be honest i was at a different position to that of the party of 1997. we didn't have any big media groups.

matter of fact we were bett for any attention whatsoever. it was a completely different dynamic, so, we just came at it from a totally different trajectory. the coalition government one of the many differences if you a a single party going into the vernment with the team directly to the government so everything remains in tact the coalition is a mix and match  different things and the prime minister and i have to fuse teams together from the totally different political perspectives in pursuit of a new poll of t coalition government and that means you can't carry on doing what you do in the opposition government because you are working in a completely different political setting. >> your experience doesn't really allow you to comment on we or the other about the underlining point because it's so different to the estimate

there was simply in my experience because the circumstances of the party and e collection and so on no prospect nearly carbon copy what we were doing in opposition the moment we walked into the government, so it was sort of just inevitable that we were ing to do quite differently i the government what we were doing in the opposition. >> 51 to 56 deals with the safeguard within your party in relation to the evolution of policy to avoid pressure from outside organizations. could i ask you please to summarize those for us? >> quite simply liberal democrats be a free open, the alberta process of policy-makin

unlike any democrats sometimes frustratingly painstaking it takes a while and it's based  a series of working groups that look at the policies and prode papers that were debated in the conferences and amended and voting on, but i think it is a wonderful inoculation if you like against the undue policy because it's done in such a systematic and open way. it's not up to the individual lead. i sometimes wish it were. we write great policy. something that we do in the ope fashion. i will always defend that. it's a good way of making pol and a very good way of making sure all views are properly reflected. >> it is something you are immensely proud of.

ere is a not and they're not in your statement, but in what you said and i'm very happy to ensure. >> it's unusual and soundsp(p, pretty unique.p+p+p+p+p+p+p+p+p+ >> andp+ 57 you explainp)p) you've had little directp)p)p(p( experience with the media on th) mediap) policy areas although y, say something quickly the hugep, and is a dozen of editorsp,p,p,) discuss the work of its inquiry has been notable.p+p+p+p+p+p+p++ can you share with us what woul+ p+ the discussion of entirelyp++ confidential, the gist of what you've been told on these occasions. >> i don't think that i am bein unfair on the editors and proprietors that i've spoken o since the inquiry was first

decided upon and establish come something in which weighs very heavily on their mind, quite understandably. there is in fact the future structure of organizational conduct. ere's a lot at stake for th and all that i observe is not nding a whole bunch of things going on, most importantly of all the stick of the economy this inquiry and its content ha nonetheless appeared in the preoccupation. >> i have been struck from my position the government seems t deal with a range of things

where our main preoccupation quite rightly and self evidently is the economy, employment, t unbelievable the different job of reforming the british econom m struck that you can have conversations with people where at overarching national concern is swept aside by day forensic interest in this inquiry, and i don't want to in any way suggested is not mensely important but it is early more important for thos at directly affect, and it's for people worried about the price when they fill the tanks and find it difficult to make ends meet and as a political politician i observed it is important in the body of the beholder.

>> i hold no belief that this inquiry has anything like the significance that should be attached to the other issues that you've mentioned so you don't feel in any sense inhibited to say what you think >> many things can be importaz the lobbying now coming and wecf have touched on this as you havf saidkf directly page 13811.kjkjj kj's possible kjto see thekjkjkj lobbying issue as a generalcncnn point further - the the revisiof to thecfcf media looking, thecff lobbying in general is withincff your policy area as the keepercf minister personally accusedcdc@@ yourself inc@c@ relation to thi@ particular consultation on the

introduction. >> the issue has been dealt with by my colleague in thec@c@c@c@ constitution political affairs.@ >> can you outline please thecv policy underpinning the gistered. >> the purpose behind our proposal which was included in the coalition agreement as the legend of the government, the purpose of a statutory register as lobbyists is principal, no exclusively but principled to address the issue about the status of the lobbyists who are not, unlike the news international for instance, t house lobbyists, but are lobbyists for several differe entities of commercial lobbyist like that is a specific issue

speaking on behalf of if they d make it known to the person they're speaking to but we felt as a national principal it is good to have complete transparency of the status of commercial lobbyists that actually are on behalf of a whole array of different interests and that is publicly known and includes in the statutory registered lobbyist and it is crucially known by th politicians and the decision makers to whom they are addressing themselves. at is the kind of number that we are trying to deal with. we have consulted on how we do at because there's a lot abou how you define lobbyists and what information is included in e register and so on, that consultation went on until apri of this year and will be comi forward shortly with his observations and responses whic

were provided in that consultation. stomach's going between any aspect on the concern there might be about the subset calle dia lobbying.  i generally have the decision making by a member of the government. we have an open mind about whether there's a distinction between in-house lobbyists, commercial will be guests at th time and within reach of the balance right in the consultation. but to my knowledge, just focusing on one sector as opposed to others is not the purpose of the exercise.

>> one of my concerns is the relationship between the press and politicians, media and politicians the lobbyists featured as we know what i am preconscious in the subset is a much bigger problem and i am somewhat apprehensive about stepping into the minefield where there are different considerations, which won't be at the forefront of this inqu and. >> i think by the coincidence mark harper is planning to publish his first thoughts on the response to the consultatio exercise weigel this is still ongoing and it may be of some assistance to you. >> looking out at a subset in

the last sentence of paris of 72 there is a danger that the lobbyists and media companiesfff the lobbyists presumably have nf power and the politician of lobbyists and other sectors. ve you seen evidence of that being realized? >> it's my early recession that the press and media are in a unique position something which liticians desperately want which is favorable and they hav access on a private one to one basis with politicians but no one else to my knowledge has  clearly that puts them in a more privileged position. >> you have already addressed the possibility of whether the

existing policy might accommodate. >> yes but as i say i don't think the thinking is to do so merely targeting this sector an that particular issue is more o a generic approach. . >> the general questions first

constantly exported new

power in so many people's hands. >> the legal test in the enterprise which and the big did you have a personal a view from skeptical.

won the conservatives and government and so forth.

murdoch himself saying news >> news corps.

>> you and other senior democrats were lobbied and this applies the coalition against the bid and news corporation in

orable treatment

from political difference one the other. >> these are the e-mails but what are truly even relate to page 01664. >> this is the eighth of november, 2010. four days after the european intervention noticed promulgated

, and it's supposed to be a private call with the main adviser. the reference to you could well be a reference but do you happen this is page 01677 related to a conversation with

statement. december there was any that meeting.

>> are you able to assist at all with the last bullet point need to support when you make the announcement on the copyright which goes against the timing and in every.

websites i've always felt should couldn't be an issue then. >> thank you. the next one may not be as controversial. 01681 the 19th of december of 2010. the chief of staff refer to those. he was very surprised they would take the decision with political influence but for him it is not a matter now is the secretary of obligations, so what he's saying

said earlier i was very keen it whatsoever the e-mail reflects undertaking in the parliament by the secretary of state, and in

the fourth paragraph down, the supporting of the remedy is writing a memo to welcome at. to the best of your recollection mike understanding is there is ciro 800. this is a memorandum from the secretary of state. i think it is one of the ones which sent forth to the prime minister. he explains that the issue seems

to have died completely and seems to have been in the strategy to review non-of the newspaper groups talking about this now. i think that the that the key to the media to criticize it because john foster was on the is that. >> the plan to make to you is that the matter had been transferred to the competition

didn't want any direct input. >> the further e-mails relate to you in some way to have 12 now page 011-8321 to 13th of march, 2011. here in the financial times about the opponents of the bid having taken that to the power with a direct lobbying effort what he tells mr. smith is that

article of bids. >> was this about the time of your conference?

>> yes, yes. funding that time on the bottom of the page reflect the undertakings in lieu of the.ñ.u consultation.ñ did generallynvnv

welcomed by the regulators etc. >> it was written by the parliamentary office in respons of the great e-mails which come  on this and i think the attempt was to provide a factua description of the state of decision making at that time, which was the undertakings in lieu of the responses from the oft saying that the undertaking halt to address the previously published concerns on the iss> 64..>.> unde.>r tab 15 if i could just.>

draw your attention to stand by> mr. meshaal to the special advisor of yours and correct me >> who is my media press spokesperson. exclamation.

hed and i don't see black male. simultaneously leading that

estimate the other issue. page 13387 january, 2011 to be coming and

>> thank you. comment.

and i thought there was right about it. and the immediate call for the

own department. cision.

asked some questions on that and as we know than the decision was taken at the end of the day. >> do you know whose idea it was to transfer the judicial functions? >> i don't. it was germy he would -- the reason things don't -- they tend to in a coalition someone close

is an idea and they are back about in the conversations and asking questions about whether we can be sure the bid would be dealt with subjectively and appropriately by mr. hunt. how the notes are compared now as you would have heard from my recollection the course of events and the case in many major issues the prime minister and i now talk about a lot and in this case we did several times in the course of several hours. >> which relations to the questions you ask to do with this objectively and

appropriately what did you know about mr. hunt's publicly stated position? about the attacks that he said what he had published it had written privately, but i remember just operating on the assumption that he would be favorably disposed towards the bid, so it was a legitimate question for me to make sure that -- but on a, you know, i was very ready to accept freedom reassurances and i did the process would have to be conducted in a sort of objective and a quasi judicial manner and that in one sense his views were relevant to that of the process stands and stood.

>> you worked on the assumption nothing more than that is that right? >> i think i was told that there were some comments on the public record from jeremy hunton. i didn't ask to see those comments myself and i was assured simultaneously that they were not sufficiently serious or of a particular nature which precluded the suggestion of transferring to jeremy hunt. >> is your view the scene now? >> is and of course now there is more information available not least the private note written from jeremy hunton to the prime minister on the subject.

to be fair and very much for instance what was then publicly known from his own website that he was a cheerleader for rupert murdoch. in many ways it was more material concerning jeremy huntsman but it didn't actually affect the content of what was known at that time, and very, very clear on this there's been discussion in parliament about the application ministerial code to jeremy hunton and the work of his special let dysart. i think on the specific point about how he handled the did to make sure that he was insulated from accusation is a personal bias to draw the process. i think that he has given a good and convincing account of this

inquiry. >> thank you. >> blight the question is whether the decisions in this sort of area should be left to ministers or regulate. of course the argument goes both ways. but how do you see that in terms of the future? >> there was a temptation of course not just to take the politicians out of it altogether. i personally sat the herbal quite high before making that decision. there was a genuine tendency at the moment to increasingly strict politicians of decision making authority. we do it on monetary policy and a whole range of issues already

the representative democracy is based on the idea that there are people that you elect to take difficult decisions better than held to account. so why do i think there is a very strong case and i've become strongly persuaded of this of tightening up the definitions which govern the call side judicial government. so for instance a plurality test seems to be in your fist and loosely defined and only actually smuggled into the 2003 communications act against the objections of the party of the time for the pressure for liberal democrats and house of lords and other across benches so there was a kind of concession and it's now the basis upon which the secretary of state has to base the decision and to tighten up their

remit given to the secretary of state but i think at the end of the day it's a good thing in the democracy to have people accountable to parliament to explain why that decision was taken and as we have any discussion whether it would be a tighter definition why they choose to exercise discretion one way or another i just think this idea that you can make everything technocratic i think that sometimes there is a false promise to just prolong and then draw them together because there isn't a politician. you have to be true because what you could end up with is a process which actually does rely on a certain degree yet highly constrained the degree of judgment in which that judgment is made by people accountable to nobody.

>> i will follow that up a bit. i understand the general plan that to make come and as i said earlier this week, i have spent my life was 12 years of a judge making decisions about legal issues when i might have personal views on the subject matter to challenge nuclear i might have views about nuclear energy or not and focus on the legal test i am required to apply and i have no doubt at all making the decisions about the nuclear energy and climate change i mentioned making the decisions in other areas of

policy politicians are entirely able to put the views towards the side while at the same time it affects that constituency so we must now recuse myself as you have in relation to one of the topics you talked about before, so it might have gone a bit close to this. all i am troubled -- and it may be that this is a one off because of the circumstances, but i am troubled that this particular decision evokes reaction in every politician which might be rather more intellectual and have something that is it your servile about it, and that creates a terrible risks and it's a risk to the politicians who said no doubt is

right that he created a position where his discussion is vanishing but the concern i've got is to consider in my terms of reference is how the future concerns about, among other things car regulation a cross media ownership should be dealt with by all of the river went authorities including the government. so, this is territory that i still have got to consider. so i have been very grateful for your views on this aspect and you are entitled to say actually if you sell one of that will never happen again but i am jerry worried about that answer. stannic my opinion is that what is called at the moment the instances of it all to us.

the subject of the interpretation notably in this case the plurality test in the enterprise act to the public interest and plurality. they take the low threshold if you like the decision that it makes the decision whether to refer, but my own view to be rational and tightly defined process because that makes it much, much more difficult for the politicians to confuse the process for their own.

if you do manage to tighten it up it is nonetheless still appropriate to have a politician at the end of the date is held to account for the final decision to remove politicians but i personally believed one can ever be so easily into tick about morality is that it is completely beyond the date and the discretion and the part of the in the present years but for the mathematical form there is the formula you get sorted out on the degree some degree of the discussion. >> i understand. but my concern is once you are in that area and i entirely endorse your view about the

importance of the understand the point very, very well. >> if you internally politician how wonderfully human being he or she is has extremely strong views brought perhaps about from personally experienced about having the policies and all the rest of it has become difficult than for the perception that actually it is payback time. and it is trying to cope with that problem i am struggling with. the easy answer is to say there for that the politicians removed from the decision making together and why i personally do

not persuade and i have to say i don't -- i wouldn't -- i personally would not assume that this is just a one-off. if you step back for a moment this is a sector in the coming years in the printed press based on a model that is quite rightly so in this inquiry one of the reasons why you have this hyperbolic shrill tone about the printed press you have a huge amount of competition or fighting for the diminishing and customers in the ferocious terms they become ever more important with a newspaper in their hand so you render the media groups

that haven't yet done so to move into the areas and a lot of the country's real decisions, so i don't think we should comfort ourselves and thinking this is a one off. >> actually the view that on at least tentatively reached but the option on the question if that option isn't open, then we don't have to cope with the issue that in this area there may be very, very strong entirely understandable news and one has got to find the mechanism to ensure that nobody can challenge a decision on the grounds of the perception of bias. ..

>> for reasons i have explained,

i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. >> your answer is ultimately that this is a risk -- but the political class has to be sufficiently grown-up about to deal with in a way that is demonstrably openly, and obviously i'm. >> it is extraordinarily important, amongst many reasons, that if you are able to make a set of recommendations. which take the ramshackle power that is available at the moment, and rather, on even procedures and make them tightly defined, easily understood, i am confident that greater precision would protect politicians in the

future from allegations of undue bias. i think we are in the worst of all worlds in the moment, however. we have politicians involved, citing on a definition of series and tests. that cannot carry on. that is absolutely obviously so. i can give you another example. i find it very odd that if a media group grows organically and increases its market share over time, under the present rules, the competition and blueberry, there is nothing, which triggers the competition authorities to have a look at what it means is, you know, a particular -- it just gets bigger and bigger. it is just another example of how the rules seem to be eccentrically designed for the realities of a fast-moving,

rapidly shifting media sectors such as the media. >> i would like to cover just one small point of detail in relation to that conversation you had with doctor cable. >> yes. >> i appreciate that conversation is private and confidential. i do not want to pry into it, but did you mention at any point [inaudible] from news corporation or news national? part of this for making these comments on december 3. >> not to me, but i'm probably aware that he had the same conversations with norman lamb. >> we move now to media policy questions in the future.

mr. clegg. we start with paragraph 77 with page 13812. three key principles, freedom accountability and plurality. we were, already touching on plurality and you would like there to be triggers into competition and plurality without an emergent situation existing. on the basis of making this point in paragraph 81. >> yes. the size matters. but size is not just determined at the point of the transaction. the success of the media group increasing its market share is -- incidentally, whether you could come up with a statistical

percentage of the definition. i am not an expert on this. i am told that it is [inaudible] but that may be one part of the forms that one introduces two coherence in this area. >> you would not be advancing consideration instinctively a percentage threshold beyond the -- >> i am open to that, but i don't have a particular figure in mind. i would not pluck it out of thin air. i would imagine it is quite tricky to define a percentage of what. and how do you propose that figure. i am open to it. but i can imagine that's i

anticipate it might be a little less straightforward than it initially seems. it's a map your comparison with light and light. the fact that bskyb has movie channels and historic and geographical channels, and all of that. to what extent is that relevant with news? that is my position. >> sure. >> the next is a series of corporate governance, which we returned to paragraph 82, the question of public interest. journalism in the public interest. paragraph 84.

are there any substances and ideas with which you wish to chart attention to consideration? >> my overall view is that everyone seems to agree that the current oversight and regulated frameworks in which the press operates is discredited. the pcc and so on. everyone agrees there needs to be reform in that area. everyone agrees that the new system needs to be robustly independent. independent parliament come up politicians, government, to have new powers that don't presently exist. powers to investigate and impose sanctions and so on. a subsidy were a question about whether the new regulatory environment were requires some form of underpinning or not.

i think that you need -- one needs to come up with a coherent solution on all of that come in order to ensure that accountability, when things go wrong, when ordinary people's courtesy is overused and power is abused by the press is properly held to a be accountable. however, i think you need to counterbalance that with reforms that actually enshrine and protect their freedom and freedom of the press, to go after the truth without fear. i am intuitively quite attracted to some of the ideas that have been presented by other witnesses in this inquiry, such as emulating the pre-independence of the judiciary in an act of parliament. i think it would be well worth exploring, in shining into the

quasi- constitutional statute, the freedom of the press and to supplement with a clearer definition of the public interest, so that journalists know that they can use a clearly understood definition of the public interest, frankly, some of the current definitions -- the public interest is almost paramount whenever the press would be free to say whatever they like. you need to come up with something where the press has competence. the press has competence that they have a public interest definition that protects them and it is with a shield against any intimidation or undue interference from politicians. and they have a quasi- constitution in a uniquely democratic society. i think that would allow them to be a little more, how can i put it? a little more comfortable with some of the unaffordable forms

in the way that -- in other words, it is a two-pronged theme. you have to take steps to protect the freedom of the press and take steps to ensure against the abuse of power in the press. >> returning to the statutory underpinning, did you see any constitutional difficulties with that, in terms of impingement on the freedom of the press? >> firstly, i say that some of the latest issue has been cast as deeply unhelpful. some of the way that it is inevitable, always come the debate has become polarized, suggesting you either force and statute upon the freedom of press or you play the lord of the jungle. neither are remotely desirable

or realistic, actually, the press already operate in a manner which is governed by statutes. data protection, taxation, you name it. that is not the case now, but i personally see this issue of whether you need statutory power of under section, it is merely a means for them. the end has got to be independent regulation and dependence of politicians and media with the press. that means, can you secure that independence without statutes? that is where i think of those people that say no statutory -- no role for statutory power at all have got to explain how on earth you can have genuine independence, which is in one way or another, underpinned by statutes. statutes may need to play a role, but first, when it is

raised by the head of the daily mail "daily mail" in a seminar associated with this inquiry, is the [inaudible] problem. it may be parliament or some other that have some role in creating incentives order cajoling all powers of the media to parse the media regulation. as recently we have seen. some just opted out of the regulatory system altogether. you have to have buy-in from everybody. we recognize a place where parliament can help it the only other a specific area where i think there may be -- might be an availability for statute -- i suppose it could be one body or sort of press commission, or maybe just one body -- they clearly cannot even give the government. they cannot be that control of parliament. we must not be in any way run by

politicians in any shape or form. they must be self standing independence, but, who it offends stands behind them if things go awry? actually, they might want to have what is called a statutory backstop and coregulation. we have instances of that already. the advertising standards. bsa has statutory backstopping in the legal servicing the word, that they have a nonstatutory body. i think it is sort of a one step it is remarkable, it might be the way to square the circle. i am very sensitive to the concerns that people have that anything that has to do with

this in terms of parliament, you have to have a fine line. that might be a way of addressing those concerns. >> don't you also have to have a mechanism whereby whoever is doing this can enforce [inaudible] >> yes. >> of course, that might mean not just the body against the press. but also the individual who wants to claim. how do we do that? >> without some sort of statutory cover. and i understand the point you make entirely. and you're probably aware that the model merely prescribes what the regulators are going to be able to do, and then the regulator is approved, because somebody says, actually, it does take all the boxes, and then it

gets someone on the job. there other ways of achieving it, if you just identified. >> the irish model, internally, i think it's quite fascinating. the way that they got around -- the desmond problem, is, if i understand it quickly, in effect, if the press organization would want to be provided protections under a new defamation law, that we are debating a new defamation bill about the freedom of the press. if you want to have those protections, you must -- you must enter into the regulatory system. that's not possible without the

statute acting as a carrot for those incentives to be effective. >> the question is without in some way, the framework having an endorsement which doesn't simply depend upon agreement. >> yes. >> on paragraph 61 of your statement. >> this would be a step too far andit is the need to make the

case available to present. [inaudible] do you feel that if it isn't -- and the two respects as you indicated your? >> i have not yet heard anyone make a persuasive case that you can make a independent regulation and pull participation of all parts of the sector. in a way which is premised upon a pick and choose, take it or leave it -- they pick and choose participation. >> if someone comes up with something, great. then we get out of all of this polemic. no one will be more delighted than me if we can find a way of getting to this holy grail of strong independent regulations without the politicians being

accused. some of the most precious critics -- ferocious critics in all of this, including mr. daker, and they themselves have said that may be parliament does need to play a role in making sure that this is across the sector. i just think we are in a real danger of having an emphatic argument. if you scratch below the surface, most people even coming to this inquiry say it must be self-regulation or cost. you might need some sort of statutory backstop. i hope we will be able to build on what i think is a working consensus, rather than dwell on what i think is a superficial disagreement. >> right.

>> did [inaudible] or whether a free-for-all aside from the beginning -- i better ask your comment, because you might have of you, on the idea that all the press could sign and, in agreement and ideas that could define -- which would give time to legislative pieces. which would be sufficient. >> i think we have a once in a generation opportunity to clean this up, to restore public confidence. delete you know, great press. it is many dallaire, it is her family, it is chris jefferies, this poor man with dragging through the press, accused of being a murderer. in effect. that is what is really plaguing people quite rightly. it is outrageous that innocent

people -- they are destroyed like that. that is what is a shame. the best way it could be done is if this inquiry to come forward quite precise proposals and deal with many issues that we are now discussing, and i certainly assumed they would play an active role, to adopt them on a cross party basis. i was very pleased to hear that others have said the same thing. this cannot be the subject of the end of political [inaudible] , and i would suggest for politicians to end this mischief about this and hold it up by endless debates.

we have been here so many times now, it has been called a last chance to live in the past. so many times before. i, personally, think that we must and can and will find a way, which actually elevates and protects rather than denigrates or undermines the freedom of the press. it can be done. >> your key message -- we are going to summarize those, power investigations, etc. is there a working consensus on a party basis, i suppose, that sort of solution? >> i cannot speak for other parties.

but what i have heard is quite optimistic, that there is a wide body of opinion across all parties that it is bad for politics and power and democracy and the press -- it is offensive and distressing to the public to just let things carry on as they are. and a little tweak here and there of a fundamentally flawed model is not going to sort this. to how much weight you give to the arguments which run along the lines, chilling effect of regulation and unintended consequences, and if we are not careful, then the sacred cow, freedom of the press, is likely to be irredeemably harmed? >> well, i would be very sensitive to that if we were to,

-- if we were to direct or indirectly see chilling effects on the press, we would be losing something precious. on the rule of democracy, it is what makes us a free democratic plural society. i think frankly some of the claims -- i have heard some people, not quite, but almost claim that somehow the existence of this inquiry -- in and of itself, it is intimidating and preposterous. the idea that stops it from doing a business -- there has been a slight quality to some of the [inaudible] productions that the press is under the kibosh. as i say, in order to absolutely provide 100% reassurance that

nothing in the new environment should infringe upon this great, liberal virtue of the freedom freedom of press, i think would not only -- and not only has to introduce the regulatory reforms cuts as i described in a intelligent manner, where any statutory role is in the background as a backstop, equally, i think we can go further than that, through clarifying and enshrining public interest and in a quasi- constitutional manner the freedom of press, and we can give more protections, i think we can go in parallel. >> do you feel in supporting that, the approach -- directing prosecution to provide guidance on how we would operate the

crown prosecutors test for prosecutions -- in relation to public interest for journalists, in which was subsequently published. >> do i think that was helpful? >> do you think that is sufficient to deal with -- >> i don't know, it is a unilateral definition of self. >> i wasn't suggesting that was an overarching definition of the public interest. that is actually a difficult thing to define, because the truth is that the public interest will actually take on different characteristics, depending upon the subject matter that you are talking about. and that is a danger of defining the public interest in a way that impedes its operation in

different areas. you mentioned a concern that journalists should know what they can and can't do. in that regard, references being need to the risk of prosecution, if what they do constitutes criminal law, and to that end, the director of prosecutions published items following the prosecution, of the things that he would take into account when considering whether prosecution was in the public interest. of course, that would bite, for example, in relation to bribery.

so that if criticism is made, -- if someone's bribe to get information, if that information was obviously and clearly in the public interest to obtain because it was your spade and trouble -- you are spade -- that would be your spade a shovel point -- that would constitute bribery, and of course, that is one production. the next possession, the end of the day is the judge saying this is no defense, but this is obviously in the public interest, therefore, to start to absolutely. is that your concern? >> i simply don't know as a matter of law or legal practice whether we would need to reflect that in primary legislation.

>> you don't need to reflect that in primary legislation. if you want to create a statutory defense, the trouble with the statutory defense line is -- that you then have to cope with what might be thought to be bogus claims of public interest in the investigation. and therefore, there could never be any criminal oversight of what is criminal behavior, because we would always be able to say there is public interest because i have this information as a resource. but i could not name for any sort of reason. therefore, you suffer a double process of challenging criminal behavior. >> to be honest, i haven't explored the cps's guidance on

this, and i have not thought through sufficiently the interaction between not and a defense in legislation. >> that was the purpose of doing so. it actually was to provide some of the reassurance, that you have mentioned, which, of course, is not to do with. >> what. >> it is a big step forward. >> recalibrating the relationship between politicians as the prime minister had said. you have any further ideas that you have in that regard? would you like to talk about transparency, of course? >> well, i think in some

circumstances -- it is a different attitude. a different outlook there is a sort of liberal philosophy that says politics is at its best and it represents the country as a whole and doesn't seek to represent partial interest. i am quite open and candid about the fact that we have also -- partly uncommon by being in anyone's pocket. it is not just one of virtue.

it is so diverse and increasingly, it is usually important, they set the bar in many respects. many particular younger people get information through diverse amount of sources. this is a good opportunity for politicians to get off their knees. we should celebrate ad we should protect that. but it really undermines politicians to stand up for themselves. and say look, we have a democratic mandate. we have gone out to get elected,

we listen to constituents every thursday and friday and saturday. the proprietors don't do that. i just mean, i just think -- a bit of an assertion of the legitimacy of politicians to make decisions in their own right, unfettered, unintimidated, on pressure, would probably go further than almost anything else in making sure that the balance is correctly set. >> thank you paragraph seven now is your statement, mr. clegg. this is the appointments of any person.

you have a conversation with the prime minister, a brief conversation -- related to decision points. this was in may 2010. >> yes. >> can i ask about the background to that conversation? presumably, you initiated it, is that right? >> yes, that is my recollection. the background to it is that we, the liberal democrats, we were opposed to the party in opposition. secondly, this is an individual that we have been highly critical of, and critical of his appointment before the elections.

>> given my trouble, given also that the prime minister was honestly aware always we aware of my party's views on it. it might explain the reason why he publicly felt that he had been satisfied with the responses that he received from him, and as he put it, you read hugh reed deserves a second chance. i have a lot of the information with allegations we now know,. also, it is important to remember that in a coalition, the prime minister has a right to make choices about reappointing, which i can't -- i

am not free to make appointments to my team, which he can't because -- it was not a proposition based on the premises but somehow i'm a you know, i would say you can't do that. that is not the understanding of it. that wasn't the understanding of it. >> is there anything else about that conversation do you remember that his material for conversation? >> no. asking generally about the phone hacking scandal, when did you first call for a public inquiry in relation to a? wasn't as late as july of last year? >> i am sure i can find out. but i cannot remember. i was very clear in my own mind, i was very clear in my own mind

when it was obvious that we had to have this -- thankfully, that is the way it transpired, which was, as they call it, i spend quite some time discussing with the prime minister about the need to have a broad remit. i was very keen that we shouldn't have is either an inquiry that looks at one part of the process. all of these things are leaked. >> i must thank you. >> i am certainly not asking for any things. but it was certainly the view that was held across the party, it needed to be broad and strong as an inquiry.

>> mr. clegg, for you, the trigger is, the events of the fourth of july last year, in particular, the revelations to nearly double -- millie dowler. >> no, he transformed everything because it is inflamed by public anger. the public indifference to the plight of politicians and celebrities, i think there is a whole different matter when they see a family in a moment of unimaginable anguish and distress. and being intruded upon in the most grotesque fashion. and it made me very angry. as i said earlier, this is all linked. i cannot believe that that level of intrusion, that level of

almost immoral behavior towards helpless, innocent people, i do not believe that would have arisen in the context of newsroom practices, which would be totally out of control, and where people clearly felt they could operate by one set of rules, while everyone else had to obey another set of laws. that culture of impunity, one rule for us and another for everyone else, it is arrogant as we know, almost certainly, it is also, i think, an expression of a culture in which, perhaps because of, the intimacy between the press and politicians and press and the police, i felt we did operate by that set of rules because they kind of had the

measure of politicians and the police. in other words, the arms of the state that should be exercising the authority, enforcing the law and transpiring. no wonder over time the press thought they could do what they like. >> is it fair that you have pointed out that you are not part of this culture's intimacy, because you told us that you were not in anyone's pocket and you didn't know they were speaking out. >> there might have been other reasons against news international. that you were not part of any kind of intimacy. is there anything that we can learn from that? >> my party was very outspoken on the issues of accountability

in the press hacking and so on. and i certainly remember spokespeople being voices on this being brushed under the carpet by the both the labor and conservative party. >> thank you very much, mr. clegg. >> thank you. the committee investigating the relationship between the press and british politicians will hear from prime minister david cameron tomorrow morning. cameron, appointed lord justice brian leveson, appointed brian leveson to oversee the phone hacking inquiries. live coverage begins at 5:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> you're watching c-span 2

with politics and public affairs. on weeknights, watch key public policy than spend every weekend, the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at her website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> kenya, indonesia, hawaii, kansas, in washington. this weekend on booktv. follow david transport. on barack obama, the story. live at 7:30 p.m., david takes your calls and questions. also this weekend, on afterwards, conservative politician blames liberals for a journey of clichés. >> by this idea that the further you move away from the left, one of the words that we use is one

is homophobic, one is sextus, what -- it is simply a conservative who is winning an argument. that is on sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on booktv this weekend antibes spent two. >> later, prime minister clifton from the house of commons in london. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal", we will get different perspective on jobs and the economy and the elections. we will talk to jon ingram, and former labor secretary in the clinton administration,

professor robert writes. later come the former head of the federal deposit insurance corporation, sheila dale on financial market regulation, plus, your calls, e-mails and tweets. "washington journal" every morning on c-span. the story behind starter spangler banner, the invasion and burning of washington dc, this weekend on american history tv. it marks the bicentennial of the start of the war of 1812. decide what francis scott key would see through the rockets red glare. live, saturday at 11:00 a.m. also, key political figures that ran for president and lost. the contenders at 7:30 p.m. this week with three-time democratic candidate for president, william jennings bryan. on american history tv on c-span 3. >> secretary of state, hillary

clinton, posted her indian counterpart on wednesday for their annual relations meeting between the two countries. after the opening statements, we will show you the news conference where she was asked about the situation in syria. >> good morning. good morning and welcome to the third annual u.s. india strategic dialogue. minister krishna, a warm welcome to you and your distinguished delegation. it is a pleasure to repay the hospitality you have shown me so often, most recently this past month in delhi, and to have those opportunities to bring together some the many experts and officials from our two countries. the strategic fundamentals of

our relationship, shared democratic values, economic imperatives, and diplomatic priorities, are moving us closer to an understanding and to a trust that reflects the convergence of values and interests. to grow and prosper, we both need open, free, fair, and transparent global economic systems. we both seek security and stability in south asia, and the asia pacific. and we understand the critical importance of a coordinated international response to violent extremism and other shelled global challenges. as a result, under president obama's and prime minister

signh's leadership, we are forging a new and more mature phase in our critical bilateral relationship. there is less need to stay for the dramatic breakthroughs that marked earlier phases, but morrissey need for study, focused cooperation. this kind of weekly, sometimes daily, collaboration is not always glamorous. but it is strategically significant. and it is exemplified by this dialogue. reflected around this table are a wide range of participants representing the many topics we are working on together. and we are committed to not only expanding our bilateral relationship, but to furthering the work that we do, regionally and globally. in fact, later this week, we

will cohost an important global health conference on child mortality. the quantity of meetings ultimately matters less than the quality of the results produced. and the effectiveness of our partnership hinges on our ability together to convert common interests into common actions. it is not enough just to talk about cooperation on issues ranging from civilian nuclear energy or attracting more u.s. investments to india, or defending human rights for promoting women's empowerment. we have to follow through so that people, citizens of two great pluralistic democracies, can see and feel the benefits. i think we are making progress. let me quickly highlight five areas. first, trade and investment. we have come a long way

together. bilateral trade and investment may exceed $100 billion this year. up 10 fold since 1995. excuse me, and up more than 40% since 2009 when we launched the strategic dialogue. there is a lot of room, however, for further growth, and we need to keep up the momentum. we look forward to working to advance negotiations on the bilateral investment treaty to further reduce barriers to trade and investment in areas like multibrand retail, and to create hospitable environments for each of our companies to do business in the other's country. second, on science and technology, we have significant accomplishments. a new partnership to advance clean energy, more than $1 billion mobilized for clean energy products, progress on the joint clean energy research, and development is center, and yesterday, westinghouse and

india's nuclear power corporation signed an agreement committing both sides to work towards the preliminary licensing and site development work needed to begin construction of new reactors in gujarat. there is still a lot of work to be done, including understanding the implications of nuclear liability legislation, but this is a significant step toward the future the moment of our landmark civil nuclear agreement. third, on education and people to people ties. yesterday, in our higher education by law, we discuss in depth how to increase educational exchanges and strengthen the ties between our universities. indians and americans are among the most innovative people on this planet. and we have so much to learn from each other. but making the most of this potential will require investments from both sides and a strong focus on areas such as

job training and digital learning, where we can make a big impact. fourth, on security and defense corporation, over recent years, we have expanded ordination and information sharing in the fight against violent extremism. our militaries are participating in joint exercises and are increasingly cooperating to combat piracy, control vital sea lanes and protect freedom of navigation. bilateral defense trade has surpassed $8 billion over the last five years. we are convinced that this partnership can grow in the future to include joint research, development, and coproduction of these defense systems. in our discussions today, i hope you can focus in particular on the need to deepen cooperation on cybersecurity, which is a growing concern for both of us. let me add on the critical

security challenge of iran's nuclear program, we can see habits of cooperation paying off. in the united states, we appreciate that india has made it clear that it understands the importance of denying iran a nuclear weapon and supports the efforts to ensure iran's compliance with international obligations. india has taken steps to diversify its sources of imported crude by reducing purchases of iranian oil, a fact that i officially reported to our congress. the united states recognizes india's growing energy needs. and we are working together to ensure not only stable oil markets, but additional areas of cooperation to help india attain greater energy security. finally, we are cooperating in south and east asia, the united states welcomes india's contributions toward building a stable, secure, and props for us

afghanistan, including more than $2 billion in assistance. we hope the conference later this month in new delhi will galvanize more international investment. together, we must continue laying the groundwork for the long-term vision that connects markets, businesses, and consumers from the caspian to the dangers and beyond. both the united states and india have signed a strategic partnership agreements with afghanistan. that demonstrate our enduring commitment, and i hope we can move toward a formal trilateral consultation among our three nations. the united states continues to support india's look east policy. both of our countries have significant stakes in the future of the dynamic asia-pacific region, and we need to expand our work both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions, such as the east asia summit and the regional forum.

to work to build a regional architecture that will boost economic growth, settle disputes peacefully, and uphold universal rights and norms. and i think these are just five of the significant areas in which the strategic fundamentals of our relationship are progressing. i am very excited and appreciative for all the work that has been done by members of both our governments. some of you are represented here today. to move our strategic dialogue further and to broaden our deep cooperation. let me again think minister krishna for his leadership, and let me now turn to him and invite him to speak. >> thank you, madame secretary hillary clinton. distinguished members of the united states delegation, it is a great pleasure for me to join

you in sharing the third india u.s. strategic dialogue. i would like to thank you profusely for hosting the dialogue, and for the warmth and hospitality. we also sincerely appreciate the efforts that you and your team and our embassy here have put into making this literally and india united states fortnight in washington. with all the other bilateral meetings scheduled in the past two weeks, it speaks to the depth of our relationship and the diversity of our engagement. madame secretary, i am particularly honored to be joined by my distinguished

ministerial colleagues,. neil: mr. ghulam nabi azad, minister for health and family welfare; mr. montek ahluwalia, deputy chairman, planning commission; mrs. krishna tirath, minister of state for women and child development; mr. ashwani kumar, minister of state for planning, science and technology and earth sciences; and mr. sam pitroda, public information, infrastructure and innovation advisor to prime mr. ghulam nabi azad, minister for health and family welfare; mr. montek ahluwalia, deputy chairman, planning commission; mrs. krishna tirath, minister of state for women and child development; mr. ashwani kumar, minister of state for planning, science and technology and earth sciences; and mr. sam pitroda, public information, infrastructure and innovation advisor to prime minister. >> i am also pleased to be joined by the most senior officers in the government of india.

even by the high standards of the india and u.s. relationship, we have had an unprecedented intensity of engagement over the past years. if a strategic dialogue is a unique opportunity to bring together all the threads of our operation that constitute the extraordinary rich tapestry of our relationship. madame madame secretary, our two sides have shared a vision that our global strategic partner could be one of the most important defining relationships of the 21st century. in july 2009 in delhi, we started a new chapter in an already exciting study of india and u.s. ties. our bilateral engagement, as well as global developments over the past three years has only strengthened our mutual

commitment to this partnership. in every field, political, strategic, security, defense, intelligence, nuclear cooperation, space, trade, and continuous progress. we are making tangible and continuous progress. what was once novel and unprecedented in our relationship is now almost routine and normal. in the process of our

engagement, we have built something more precious, friendship, good will, trust, mutual confidence, candor, and belief in the importance of a successful partnership. sometimes there are questions and doubts about the relationship. they are inevitable, in something so unique and new. but i believe that having settled the question of whether india and the u.s. can or should work towards a close relationship, the question we ask now are how to harness the full potential of that relationship. if we go by the investments that the two governments are making,

and the energy and enterprise of our people, we are, madame secretary, on the right track. as i say, we have reasons to be satisfied, but not to be complacent. so we hope, in the course of today, we will chart the course ahead for both the immediate future and long term. i now think the dialogue process will start. thank you. ..

i will just touch on a few highlights. first, one to put this third strategic dialogue and a broad context. india and the united states have a strong foundation of friendship and cooperation. but today we are seeing something new. tester digit fundamentals of the relationship are pushing in the two countries' interest and closer convergence. by the fundamentals not just a

shared space values but also our economic imperative ever diplomatic and security parity. for example, in order to grow and prosper in today's world both of the united states and india need an open, free, transparent global economic system. we both seek security and stability in south asia and asia-pacific and we both cd and portents of a coordinated international response through violent extremism and other shared global challenges. what does this mean for our partnership? today there is less need for dramatic breakthroughs that marked earlier phases and our relationship. but more needs for study focused cooperation aimed at working through our differences and advancing the interest and values we share. this kind of daily, weekly,

monthly cooperation may not always be glamorous, but it is strategically significant, and that is after all with this dialogue is about. on the economic front, we reviewed the process that we've made together and acknowledge there is still more room for growth, investment and business ties. we need to advance negotiations on a bilateral and investment treaty, further reduce barriers to trade and investment in the countries to create more hospitable environment for companies to do business. and i was pleased that just yesterday westinghouse and the nuclear power corporation of india signed an agreement that will speed construction of new power plants in bucher rot and helped india meet its energy needs. i look forward to additional reveals involving other leading american companies including

general electric, and we will work together to ensure these projects are implemented to produce real benefits for citizens and businesses alike. we also have a number of serious concerns such as counterterrorism, a security and sustainable development. we discussed cooperation afghanistan and the importance of working together with other partners to build a peaceful south asia. both the united states and india have signed strategic partnership agreements with afghanistan our commitment and today we agreed to move forward with a fair multilateral consultation among the three nations. i will the minister how much we appreciate the efforts in afghanistan and the reason we are looking forward to the investment conference that india

will post later this month in new delhi. we also discussed that the did christa said india and pakistan are seeking to open up avenues for reinvestment for people and i applaud the leadership that the prime minister has demonstrated. to the asia-pacific region hour strong support for india's look east policy. we would work to get in through the key multilateral institutions such as the east asia senate and the forum our participation as a dialogue partner in the indian ocean rim association for the regional cooperation. finally, we worked through some of the issues that we have

fielded in common because of the concerns about iran's continuing search for the nuclear weapon, and india has made it clear that iran, like all countries, must live up to their international obligations and as i reported to congress this week, india has taken steps to diversify its sources of imported to weaker imported crude of the purchases of oil. we recognize the importance energy needs india has and we are working with indy 500 and not only to ensure the stable markets, but to do more to open up other sources of energy for india. on all of these and other key issues, we are working to convert to common interest in common act -- fans that don't

make the headlines but are so critical, such as yesterday's first ever higher education dialogue making it easier for u.s. and indian researchers, students and faculty to ticket vantage on the educational resources and the opportunity in both countries and announced the first grant recipient that the obama 21st century knowledge initiative. the commission is working on improving our linkages in science and engineering data sharing. we have a new agreement signed in the health area to boost research on diabetes and for the first time we agreed to share the u.s. in the open government platform software that promotes transparency and accountability with a free country partner,

rwanda. the list is a very long and the minister and i will be making a comprehensive report to the printer and on to the president of everything that has been happening in all of the various aspects in this dialogue. but i want to thank my partner and colleague in this work for his attention that has translated this idea into a very important reality for both of the country's. >> thank you, psychiatry clinton. it is always a pleasure for me to come back to washington dc. because it is in this city that i spent a couple of years of my

interest in introduction into american politics. some of the great americans who have led this country subsequently in the subsequent years, and it is always an added pleasure for me personally to meet with secretary clinton i always derives so much comfort and so much of if i may say so, secretary clinton. three years back we start on this journey of the strategic relationship, and this we are representing our two great

countries and let me convey that we had a very productive strategic dialogue. i want to thank of my ministerial colleagues and senior officials for their participation. we speak to the extraordinary that for the engagement which is ever increasing the relationship between the two countries and the vibrant democracies and the other one the largest. secretary clinton and i expressed confidence about realizing the enormous potentials of the economic titles and addressing the concerns on both sides which had

outlined yesterday. we've report the tangible progress on the cooperation and as was mentioned by secretary clinton with designing the m ou. i think this should put some of the interpretations and some of the confusions in the immediate aftermath after we signed the nuclear accord. but i'm glad that now they are beginning to expand, and we hope more indian and american companies would get involved in, course of the coming months.

the significant technology transfers and the code development and production in the expanding government's relationship have informed secretary clinton of the willingness to receive a team of officials to visit india from the surge that remains. a stronger and more effective cooperation and counterterrorism, homeland security come server security and intelligence in the recent years is an important aspect of the strategic partnership. india's interest and further

access in the legal procedures for the investigations of the attack. the broad cooperation in energy i also sought the gas exports to india in the economic interest with the programs in higher education, health, science technology, innovation, agriculture and development. there is tangible progress in these areas. as secretary clinton has pointed out, our discussions demonstrated yet again our

shared interest and convergent tools. we are committed for the development and security through the regional integration. we stress the importance of elimination's of safe havens in afghanistan security. we discussed the gulf region including our concern about the growing violence. psychiatry clinton updated me on the p5 plus one.

i conveyed the likely interest settlement of the iranian nuclear issue through dialogue. there are 6 million indians wishes of strategic importance to the economy. we share perspectives on the profound changes taking place than myanmar and also i briefed the prime minister in a recent visit. since we continue to intensify our dialogue on asia-pacific and the region as also associated regional architecture we affirm our mutual the interest in maritime security.

secretary clinton welcomed the growing engagement in the asia-pacific. i welcome the the u.s. interest in becoming a dialogue partner. i'm told that as the current chair we would take it forward with other members. our meeting today it again underscores the global dimensions of the relationship and added new momentum to the partnership. thank you. >> you and minister lavrov of russia appeared to be calling each other liars. in essence, you are saying that russia is providing helicopters.

in fact the word was used on route today on route syria. minister lavrov completely denies that. he says they are providing air defense systems but everything they are providing does not violate international law. then he threw back at you and said the u.s. indeed is providing arms and weapons so you can't both be right. on the military relationship between moscow and the sadr regime to cut the military high is completely and to suspend all further support and deliveries. obviously we know we and confirm that they continue to deliver

and we believe that the situation is spiraling towards the civil war and it's now time for everyone on the international community including russia and all security council members to speak to a spot with a unified voice. with the political transition going forward it's in the interest most particularly the syrian people, and russia says that it wants peace and stability restored. it says it has no particular love lost for assad and has little interest in the relationships that it wants to continue to keep. they put all of that at risk if

they do not move more constructively right now and i would emphasize that the united states has provided no military support to the syrian opposition to all our support as the medical and humanitarian to help relieve the suffering of the syrian people a total of $52 million so far. we also provided non-lethal support to the opposition including things like communications gear. so rather than having a long distance the debate with my colleague with whom i work with so many issues on a regular basis i would urge we follow the

lead and repress that kofi annan would come together to try to implement the pillars of the plan and putting on a framework for a political transition and that is what we've been advocating for and what i stand ready to do. >> after three rounds of the dialogue for the u.s. the two countries headed towards a strong relationship between then and give us what is the method. you address first the speech on india and say this is the beginning of india u.s. three-point co for what would look like and do you agree with recent that india needs to do more in afghanistan.

you say to the u.s. know we can do this and finally india has made the request involved in the attack it's ready to give them access again. >> do you want to start? >> where to start. >> i will take a stab at it. because it is one of those multi questions. let me try to first as to the

strategic dialogue we go from strength to strength and i'm quoting the minister today because we believe strongly and we have evidence to prove it that our relationship is deepening and broadening. the extraordinary work that has been done between the last strategic dialogue and today on so many issues we will memorialize in our report and certainly make public demonstrates cooperation between the two countries, and it's not only the government to government. we are bringing in the civil society. we are bringing in academia, we are bringing in the private sector. so, i for one believe that we may be surpassing three-point know. we may be onto something that is quite unique and very important, and i appreciate you asking.

second, on afghanistan why was briefed on the work that india is doing with afghanistan. we very much appreciate the commitment to help build a better future for the afghan people, helping them with more than $2 billion for development supporting the new silk road initiative posting the investment conference at the end of the month providing security training and support. i am very pleased that afghanistan is getting this kind of encouragement and tangible support because it is in everyone's interest that afghanistan is a secure and stable was possible. it is our policy and practice to share information and we do

that, but i'm not going to go into detail because our cooperation on intelligence sharing on homeland security issues come on counterterrorism has gotten to a new level. it is very important to both of our countries but it's also important that we support the work that is done by our professionals and our experts and protecting both of our country's and we are satisfied. >> the strategic dialogue that has taken place in the united states in the last three years has been extremely beneficial to india the tangible outcome of

the broad base discussions that we have asked the officials listed in the giant statement that has been issued if i am to list some of the most important areas we have moved i have a strategic dialogue and mistakenly single out higher education, science and technology, innovation and clean energy. and the interest of the dialogue on education issues for the

academy. i think this is an important moment in the most positive direction that not only the two governments are involved in this strategic dialogue but the civil society has was put by secretary clinton. the civil society is also informed and academia is also involved, so hence i think this dialogue derives its basic strength from this and we will certainly continue to take this forward and we would have some useful outcomes that i mentioned about the agreement and the

shared interests of the regional and global issues added a new momentum for the global strategic partnership. but the difference to afghanistan in the's rules have always been a very constructive approach. afghanistan false and the larger neighborhood and we have a start historical triet connection and cultural ties in that country and with the people of afghanistan. and president karzai when he can last october to sign the strategic partnership with afghanistan and the whole purpose behind that is to convey to the people of afghanistan

that the afghan problem has to be solved. yes, the need excellent support to the extent that it is possible, and that support will not be available indefinitely and that is the reason why we have impressed upon afghanistan and other countries who are well-meaning friends of afghanistan that we need with a security force trained by others but basically that can lead so i think we will continue to do that and will be able to find a

solution within the honors of the constitution to estimate if we could go back to syria for just a second i'm wondering how bad of a relation between the u.s. and russia got over this. there are some that might argue that it's almost become as much about the u.s. and russia poking each other is about the issue here and how has it taken away and secondly if it is spiraling towards the civil war what does that say about the observer were you concerned about the safety but they remain in the same capacity if and when you are ready to say it is a full-blown civil war. everyone knows we have a very comprehensive relationship with russia we have worked well

together on a range of important issues in the last three and a half years the so-called reset the president obama and president medvedev lead at the beginning of this administration has been quite constructive and positive for certainly the united states and russia and the larger world. we disagree on syria. that's not the only issue that we disagree on, but it is one where people were being killed every single day where violence is escalating, where the government has engaged in these brutal assaults against unarmed civilians including children we disagree, and we were encouraged when russia and the other members of the security council

supported the plan and we had been working very hard with many nations to translate that plan into tangible steps that can be taken and it's clear that the voices of the entire international community need to be in the message that it is time for him to participate in saving his own country from a downward spiral into even greater violence and as a special part of kofi annan's plan that includes a political transition. so we've had numerous discussions and we are remaining

hopeful that he will be given to bring a relevant kaput nations and multinational organizations together to find a way forward. so we will state our position very clearly and support kofi annan and we do so in part because we are worried about the u.n. mission. we think that the events of last week's where the u.n. observers have been put at risk even in positions where they were attacked intentionally or unintentionally in the midst of the conflict are worrisome and i've talked about this last week's with kofi. he doesn't want to put these brave men and women that are trying to help protect civilians into situations that are

absolutely untenable and dangerous to them. all of these concerns have to be addressed and i think it's time for the international community including russia to come to the table and be constructive in trying to find a way forward. >> thank you putative i have only one question for each of you. >> my question is of the linkages between india and the u.s. a strategic dialogue where they're appears to be pressure on india to open up access to some of its markets more rapidly and also some disappointment with india's decisions in the nuclear sector until recently and the defense sector. how would you explain india's's views on these matters and on the flip side did you have

regarding u.s. policies that affect the economic interest. >> eustis semper demint 2010 you describe the relationship at the heart and since then however there have been various steps and downs and until recently slow progress and india's's concerns may be about protectionism and the question so given the strong stand that both of these countries have on the countries' mutual interest do you see any changes that you might propose to the model so to speak that the u.s. had on this relationship? >> with respect to the affairs of the heart they usually have ups and downs, but that doesn't make them any less heartfelt or

any less commitment to read it a temptation to zero in on what the differences are that is understandable and it is to be expected by the press as part of your job. but whether it's one country or another or in particular india all i always look at the totality of the relationship. i would be never in a position to say we don't have differences , the two great nations with our history and our political systems, these raucous incredibly pluralistic democracies to not have

differences the would be quite odd if that were the case. but our values and our interests are converging that we have a view of this relationship that is keeping with their perspective and history that bring us together in the 21st century where we are finding so much common ground that we are working on together. so i'm very positive about our relationship and we will continue to work for the differences as they arise. >> the fact that the degree regarding the prevailing sentiment of business and the economic relationship.

i have listed some of our pressing concerns in my speech. i have also been sensitized to the concerns articulated by u.s. business. in times of inability and uncertainty for the global economy, exploration of such views are not unusual. however as i said yesterday and the indian economy would restore investors' confidence and regain the momentum. i have great confidence in the future for the economic

partnership. the trade, investment and innovation growing in both directions our defense and high-technology trade is ever expanding. india plans to invest more than a trillion dollars on the development and if coming five years will provide enormous business opportunities which the u.s. companies can consider. openness and growth to the u.s. economy would also support stronger economic ties and we

have issued making investments in india the others can't be a level playing increase and there would be a total transparency and with these being ensured i'm sure that a number of the company's from outside of india would be willing to participate in the great developmental journey that india is sitting on, and i am sure that the united states and india strategic relationship is going to be helpful in this journey. thank you.

[inaudible conversations]

american politics have been distorted the last century or so by the idea that the left the

closer you get to do bad things another is racist and another is cilluffo backend sexist and in some ways the best definition of a political life is simply conservative who's winning an argument. >> the national john correspondent what's going on? >> in the middle of the summer but lawmakers are trying to figure out. the authorities been under endless extensions over the years to expire june 30th and the lawmakers with the very least me to come up with a short-term extension to keep the money flowing into the high rate

trust fund and the other issue that is coming up in the middle of the summer is that there are subsidized student loan interest rates set to double on july 1st a financing act but lawmakers are saying they don't want to see the interest rate doubles the they are trying to come up with a way to pay for a new highway bill that will allow federal authorities in the fund to continue for at least a year maybe a little bit longer and to keep those interest rates from going up and they are proposing a couple of different pension solutions. there's a couple different things that the senate majority leader harry reid has put out in terms of accounting for how certain pensions account for an employer's standpoint in the premiums they would pay to the

pension benefit guaranty corporation. >> some republicans think that these offsets would work just fine but they wouldn't cover both bills. >> you mentioned senate majority leader harry reid. how have the lawmakers in the house and the house speaker john boehner reacted to his latest proposal the would freeze the interest rates for the year? >> they are unwilling to look at until they see that the senate could actually pass a bill to read this has been an on going back and forth between the house and senate the student loan issue and the highway bill issue for several months now. the house has passed a bill to freeze the subsidized student loan interest rate for one-year for a federal health prevention fund as part of obama's health plan as the offset for it. since the past that they feel no need to act until they see the senate passing something and it's on clear whether they will so they're basically not even paying attention to it.

>> what is the status of the conference committee on renewing the surface transportation programs? >> the conferees of the transportation committee in the house and the senate have been exchanging papers back and forth for several weeks and say they are working very hard. the problem is they haven't even touched some of the top line controversial issues that have been driving the transportation debate for months. the would be the keystone pipeline and also how you would pay for the roughly 9 billion worth 12 billion that you might need to bridge the gap between what would be collected from the gas taxes and when you would need to keep funding at the same level. they're supposed to be resolved by the house and senate leaders of the conferees so while they seem to be friendly from a understand it's hard to know how they are naturally going to result the high reissue i

predict an extension. >> which you will be the ones the will claim those offsets that we've been talking about? >> based on the comments from the house speaker john boehner and majority leader harry reid, i would place my bets on the student loan issue in part because it is much simpler than the highway legislation and can extend the highway program without too much difficulty. president obama and the presumptive republican nominee mitt romney said they want to keep the student loan interest rate low it's important to go through them so politically it would seem that the student loan issue would probably win out if you have to pick. i think that harry reid particularly is trying to say that he doesn't want to have to pick she would be given to be for both of them but it isn't clear they are going to follow through.

>> we have confronted the russians about stopping their continued arms shipments to syria. they have come from time to time, said that we shouldn't worry. everything they are shipping as unrelated to their actions internally. that is untrue, and we are concerned about the latest information that we have that there are attacked helicopters from russia to syria which will

escalate the conflict quite dramatically. >> deputy prime minister and liberal minister testified wednesday in london before the panel examining the relationships between british politicians and the media. he talked about the state of the media and his contact with journalists before the 2010 elections. this is two and a half hours. >> the honorable michael 

>> i do declare the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing bt the truth. >> you provided us with a witness statement the to the  of april this year togethe with one exhibit. is this the evidence in this inquiry?  yes. >> thank you very much indeed for the statement. as i said to the predecessors sitting there i am very grateful to the work that's been put into the compiling ann curry in query. >> you deal with the broad role of the inquiry and state that i is the lifeblood of the space society. would you agree that a free ess needs to be balanced

against the response will be pendent on that? >> yes, it is a balance. the free press self evidently i the lifeblood of a free and space society and freedom of th ess needs to be protected at all times and cost but it needs  be balanced against the risk of abuse or power and this is t just in the press immedia but when concentration of power is yielded unaccountably need t try to find some remedies and safeguards against that. >> you deal with the four specific areas first of all covering the interaction between the politics and the media starting in paragraph four ofp?? your statement. i'm going to engage in tp=hose = you see fit.p=p=p=p=p=p=p= p=the first specific rubric is =

vernment policy which is paragraph 578. >> yes. the point here is that the  entitled individual newspaper groups are entitled to hold strong views and to seek to promote those and swayed the governments to adopt them at al cost and also provides a very important corrective in the political system, so whether it was the daily mail ann curry come the guardian whether the dia picks up to make sure the

politicians are not weak in the face of pressure they don't agree with unwarranted or justified in a mature democracy the press is one thin and intimidation is another, an i think it's important not just the press but the political class allow themselves over tim to be intimidated or controlled estimate you referred in paragraph six to part of the coverage and then an paragraph eight the newspapers have a careful line between the expression of the opinions and projecting the propaganda. how do you achieve that last objective keeping on the right side.

>> this is a 10 million-dollar question. the code itself has very cl powerful wording between the fact come jester opinion. i think it's fair to observe that is not always readily recognizable in the content of what is published in the prs but i personally cannot see any means by which you would seek t regulate. i think it is a principle which is stated in the code. the more the press abides by  own code, the matter but i woul be very wary indeed the would wary indeed going down a slippery slope for the opinion

they blair constantly to unrave them. >> but you're not suggesting that it is a principle which the press ought themselves to follo ot follow and state principally in the code althoug there are people that have sad various things about that as yo are probably aware. i entirely understand that it's not something that you would ever want to try to legislate for because content is sacrosanct for the reasons of free speech and the like, but that's not to say that there shouldn't be internal controls but at least it is thought abou by the press themselves.

>> yes. in a sense the public is titled to believe that that i or should be the case already given the an ambiguous wording and intent of the code. most people would view the code as being that, the code which i adhered to, not a sort of pick and choose menu of aspirations. so, i really think respecting the code is on the press itself and if out of this process there were to be greater respect fo e code the press itself believes in was formed and drafted, there would be a good thing. my simple observation is i think it is a cul-de-sac to believe that issue could conjecture and be fixed from some external --

>> make correct the point there are no bright lines because your selection affects each one made themselves to an influential, and if you select the difference of it then the comment is fferent. >> yes, we have a philosophical term here. ere are such things as facts, which speak in a sort of forum for themselves and are not  any way tempered by the way the are ordered and presented, the language which is -- i don't believe intuitively there is a thing called pristine fact whic is somehow, you know, can somehow be in the context which is presented, and perfectly accurate facts can be none the less presented in the form to make a why this objective point

>> you're second general point starts with paragraph nine, the relationship between the media and the political parties. and here again, you state in paragraph ten balancing and one needs to get the balance right and you sit out the problems. but i would ask you to elaborate on those, please. >> the point i make is to get the balance right, the mutual interest but always exist with the mutual and of the political triumphalism must be avoided. i think it is right, inevitab legitimate and to be expected politicians will seek out the media because you can't do your job as a politician on less use to convey your views by the media and it is